RE: Biofuel timebomb
Discussion
jetpilot said:
Whilst i dislike the EU as much as the next man, we are still part of G8 or G10 whatever it is now, that also makes these guidelines!
However, still cant get my head around the concept of hybrids when the cost to manufacture and most likely dispose (batteries) will have more impact than a car built 10 - 15 years ago and i still think it escapes most (or ignored) that the electricity used still has to be produced causing Co2.
Electric, bio etc is still not the way forward, hydrogen is the future it my eyes!
if I understand correctly, this is an EU directive that has not come from G8 However, still cant get my head around the concept of hybrids when the cost to manufacture and most likely dispose (batteries) will have more impact than a car built 10 - 15 years ago and i still think it escapes most (or ignored) that the electricity used still has to be produced causing Co2.
Electric, bio etc is still not the way forward, hydrogen is the future it my eyes!
Agree completely that Hydrogen would be a better way forward than Hybrids and Bio. This planet is mostly water afterall...
(1988 Escort & 1990 Astra, nothing special but still!)IceBoy said:
Oh sh*t indeed.
I have a couple of 90's GTI's Mk1 & 2 ??
I was hoping to pass these on to my to my boys when they get old enough?!?
What does this mean in real terms? Will old cars just be wiped off the UK roads?
IceBoy
This is what the Eurocrat drones want in any case. Cars over 10 years old are way too dangerous, polluting and inefficient. What no airbags or stability control? That's an accident statistic waiting to happen...I have a couple of 90's GTI's Mk1 & 2 ??
I was hoping to pass these on to my to my boys when they get old enough?!?
What does this mean in real terms? Will old cars just be wiped off the UK roads?
IceBoy
(I'm stuffed - all my stuff is 15 years +)
Statler said:
Does anyone know how this will effect motorcycles as it looks like my car will be shot, I will have to rely on the bike more.
Was thinking the same thing. May need to upgrade my Honda to the newer fuel injection. I used supermarket fuel and BP with my 92 Honda CBR600. The fuel Diaphragm split in the end. I have noticed that Using BP when bike is hot, causes air locks and bike will not start until cooled down. I like Shell fuel at the moment, My bike and even my Pug 306 1.4 feel more responsive (forget mpg lol). But notice no difference in overall mpg. Getting 60 miles from £10, probably says alot about my driving, but lot is urban and 100 miles from bike with £10.There are some decent cars on that list that use E10. V8 Corvettes lol. All Pugs from 2001, great, I'll change my 1998 model for a 2001 model, which I could do with doing anyway. Still not good news.
I like it when some people post about getting a brand new car or changing every 2 years like its normal. Sorry, But I cannot afford to do that and neither can most of the people I know.
I have a bike and a Car totalling less the £2K. Even new cars that are meant to be cheap, like the new Seat featured on 5th Gear, is over £7k. New cars are getting more expensive and this will mean living on credit. I have just paid all my debts and do not want to live off credit again (ex mortgage obv.)
Yes, lets all borrow more money and live beyond our means.
Wow a rant on PH. Sorry for that lol. But its over now!
gareth_r said:
f
k, wasn't aware of this. 
Richyvrlimited said:
ali_kat said:
Agree completely that Hydrogen would be a better way forward than Hybrids and Bio. This planet is mostly water afterall...
... Except getting at that hydrogen is really difficult en-mass and not very efficient at all.We will have 15 Hydrogen Black Cabs for the Olympics next year, and we already have two hydrogen fuelling stations in London for the Hydrogen Buses on the RV1 Route (Tower Gateway - London Bridge - Tate Modern - National Theatre - Waterloo - Covent Garden).
Niffty951 said:
There have been some really interesting responses on this thread. I can't agree with this one though.
Firstly replacing your car every 2 years would create an industrial use of fossil fuels and materials that would far outstrip anything a classic may use on the road.
Secondly changes made meeting the latest euro requirement for diesels actually increases the fuel consumption at motorway speeds. Your Alfa 1.9 would now struggle to better 45mpg on a motorway run where a mk4 1.9 golf of similar weight and luxury would have done 60mpg.
Thanks for your eloquent counterpoint sir! Firstly replacing your car every 2 years would create an industrial use of fossil fuels and materials that would far outstrip anything a classic may use on the road.
Secondly changes made meeting the latest euro requirement for diesels actually increases the fuel consumption at motorway speeds. Your Alfa 1.9 would now struggle to better 45mpg on a motorway run where a mk4 1.9 golf of similar weight and luxury would have done 60mpg.
Edited by Niffty951 on Tuesday 20th December 13:01
I would point out that I am not saying whether it is right or wrong to change your car every few years. I agree that it is wasteful to do so. The greatest trick the motor industry ever pulled was making the average person think that their car is ready for the scrap heap once it reaches 80k miles.
However, the truth is that most people DO change their cars frequently for more modern models. Most lease and HP deals are two and three years. I buy my cars and tend to change mine more frequently than that, though more because I get bored!
More so than ever before however, you see less and less older cars on the road. The majority of cars I see on the road in Manchester are no more than six years old.
On your second point, I thought new developments were making diesels more efficient (stupid DPFs asside)? Maybe the old 110 bhp 1.9 diesels would see 60 mpg on the motorway, but most modern units use 150 - 170 bhp as their sweet spots don't they, which naturally tend to be a little more thirsty. Still, I keep seeing some mightily impressive MPGs quoted for newer diesels and even petrols these days. We all know manufacturers stated figures are hopelessley optimistic, but things still look to be improving.
BTW my current Alfa is a 2.4, so I would be delighted to see 45 mpg on the motorway!
ali_kat said:
Really? I thought it was the intitial cost of production
We will have 15 Hydrogen Black Cabs for the Olympics next year, and we already have two hydrogen fuelling stations in London for the Hydrogen Buses on the RV1 Route (Tower Gateway - London Bridge - Tate Modern - National Theatre - Waterloo - Covent Garden).
Well 15 cars isn't really a lot to cater for, and the country is much larger than London, (not that Londoners notice)...We will have 15 Hydrogen Black Cabs for the Olympics next year, and we already have two hydrogen fuelling stations in London for the Hydrogen Buses on the RV1 Route (Tower Gateway - London Bridge - Tate Modern - National Theatre - Waterloo - Covent Garden).
How do you extract hydrogen from salt water, store and transport it around the county to supply the entire nation with enough fuel? It's a much more inefficient process than extracting oil out of the ground and processing it into petrol/diesel.
soad said:
gareth_r said:
fk, wasn't aware of this. 
This is getting worst! I have an old mercedes (1966)and our forum asked mercedes what was safe and what wasnt re bio fuel..... here is the answer - note the last line.... i know not many Maybach owners on this forum (probably) but if you have ANY merc AMG read on...
Mercedes-Benz (Daimler) has researched which cars can utilize this fuel without problems. The attached service information bulletin SI47.00-P-00002A (in German) gives these details. In summary, it means that all Mercedes-Benz cars can use E10 with the exception of:
- cars without a 3 way catalytic converter, ie all cars prior to and including 1985 (i.e. our Pagoda's)
- cars with a carburettor
- 4 cylinder CGI cars of the first generation (C200CGI, CLK200CGI t/m 2005)
- AMG cars or Maybach cars
Mercedes-Benz (Daimler) has researched which cars can utilize this fuel without problems. The attached service information bulletin SI47.00-P-00002A (in German) gives these details. In summary, it means that all Mercedes-Benz cars can use E10 with the exception of:
- cars without a 3 way catalytic converter, ie all cars prior to and including 1985 (i.e. our Pagoda's)
- cars with a carburettor
- 4 cylinder CGI cars of the first generation (C200CGI, CLK200CGI t/m 2005)
- AMG cars or Maybach cars
I think maybe the article is designed to illicit a knee jerk response and that is exactly what it has done, it is likely that we have all been using fuels with Bio-Ethanol in for some time and I am of the understanding that most stations will be selling the lower percentage stuff now, and although I have heard BP ultimate is ok with a very low or nil content I am not certain. Indeed Ethanol boosts octane so the premium stuff is actually more likely to contain a larger percentage than the standard.
As I said before in this thread for my old Rover SD1 I have bought some additive from Millers and believe the Fbhvc are sorting out a test to see what works, although I think they are looking at how it affects the really old stuff and not the 90's and later. In my case I am more bothered about the effect on the tank, pump, injectors, and fuel lines, the car seams to run fine just don't want it to go boom on me due to leaks.
Interestingly I was talking with a guy who fills his light aircraft/micro-light sort of thing using petrol and it has to have no biofuel in it for which he has a testing kit to check before filling.
As I said before in this thread for my old Rover SD1 I have bought some additive from Millers and believe the Fbhvc are sorting out a test to see what works, although I think they are looking at how it affects the really old stuff and not the 90's and later. In my case I am more bothered about the effect on the tank, pump, injectors, and fuel lines, the car seams to run fine just don't want it to go boom on me due to leaks.
Interestingly I was talking with a guy who fills his light aircraft/micro-light sort of thing using petrol and it has to have no biofuel in it for which he has a testing kit to check before filling.
ali_kat said:
Richyvrlimited said:
ali_kat said:
Agree completely that Hydrogen would be a better way forward than Hybrids and Bio. This planet is mostly water afterall...
... Except getting at that hydrogen is really difficult en-mass and not very efficient at all.We will have 15 Hydrogen Black Cabs for the Olympics next year, and we already have two hydrogen fuelling stations in London for the Hydrogen Buses on the RV1 Route (Tower Gateway - London Bridge - Tate Modern - National Theatre - Waterloo - Covent Garden).
Munich said:
ali_kat said:
Richyvrlimited said:
ali_kat said:
Agree completely that Hydrogen would be a better way forward than Hybrids and Bio. This planet is mostly water afterall...
... Except getting at that hydrogen is really difficult en-mass and not very efficient at all.We will have 15 Hydrogen Black Cabs for the Olympics next year, and we already have two hydrogen fuelling stations in London for the Hydrogen Buses on the RV1 Route (Tower Gateway - London Bridge - Tate Modern - National Theatre - Waterloo - Covent Garden).
Richyvrlimited said:
bosscerbera said:
Hey, chill, biofuel doesn't affect MX5s.
Apologies for actually basing my point on experience :-POne might less sensationally conclude:
- Mazda is using biofuel resistant materials (by more luck than judgement in older vehicles)
- MX5s are being regularly used (the fuel does not languish in the tank for long periods)
- The ethanol content from refill to refill is not consistent (which is why to meet a target of 10%, higher (and lower) % may be found at the pumps)
Something else you might like to consider is that older cars often have 'pattern' parts fitted. OEM data may not apply - material choice is an easy corner to cut, or upgrade in the performance aftermarket.
Ethanol is hygroscopic and corrosive. To coin a phrase, I am basing my point on experience.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff